Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
Pathakhadarabad Handloom Weavers` Co-operative Society & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11647 of 2022, Contempt Case No. 3645 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2023
WRIT PETITION - MANDAMUS - APCO - PRIMARY HANDLOOM COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES - POWER LOOM WEAVERS' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY - PAYMENT OF DUES - INJUNCTION - ATTACHMENT - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION - LIBERTY TO APPROACH COURT AFTER FINAL DETERMINATION OF DUES - CONTEMPT CASE CLOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, Primary Handloom Cooperative Societies, filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Respondent No.2, APCO, to pay the dues payable to them for the livery cloth supplied during the years 2015-2019 before paying the bills to the Respondent No.6, a Power Loom Weavers' Cooperative Society. The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent No.2 had released the amounts to the Respondent No.6 without clearing their pending dues, which was illegal and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court noted that the Petitioners had already filed separate Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.26663, 26308, 18410, 8369, 18389, 18226 and 18181 of 2021) seeking payment of their dues, which were pending before the Court. The Court observed that the claim raised by the Petitioners was yet to be determined and that the cause of action for seeking an injunction to secure certain monies lying in the credit of the Respondent No.2, to the detriment of Respondent No.6, in the nature of an attachment, could not be countenanced without a determination of a pending debt.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioners were entitled to a direction to the Respondent No.2 to pay their dues before paying the bills to the Respondent No.6? 2. Whether the Court could grant an injunction to secure the debt, which was yet to be finally determined, to the detriment of the Respondent No.6?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Petitioners' claim for payment of dues was yet to be determined in the pending Writ Petitions and that the cause of action for seeking an injunction to secure certain monies lying in the credit of the Respondent No.2, to the detriment of Respondent No.6, in the nature of an attachment, could not be countenanced without a determination of a pending debt. 2. The Court further held that it could not pass an Order in the nature of an injunction or an attachment to secure the debt, which was yet to be finally determined by the Court in the other Writ Petitions, to the detriment of the Respondent No.6.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Court as and when the final determination in respect of the dues is finally arrived. The Court also closed the Contempt Case.
JUDGMENT
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.Ramamohan, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.6.
2. It is agreed by all the Counsel that for the sake of convenience, the Writ Petition bearing No.11647 of 2022 and Contempt Case bearing No.3645 of 2022 be taken up and heard together. In view of this consensus, the Writ Petition and Contempt Case were heard together.
3. The prayer in the Writ Petition is as under:
'It is therefore prayed that this Hon?ble Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly on in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in releasing the amounts to the 6th Respondent from the funds released and available in proceedings vide R.C.No.SS-16/16/2022-CMOSEC-SSA dated 14.03.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the 2nd Respondent without clearing the pending dues payable to the Petitioners for the Livery cloth supplied during the years 2015-2019 even after the lapse of more than 4 years, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to pay the sum payable to the petitioners along with accrued interest @ 24% per annum till the date of payment for the cloth supplied during the year 2015-2019 before paying the bills to the 6th respondent and pass such other order or orders as the Hon?ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'
4. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, Ld. Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the Respondent No.2 namely the A.P. State Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society Limited (for short 'APCO') is a Cooperative Society registered under Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 6 of 1964 read with Section 3(2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society (Formation) Ordinance No.14 of 1976; that the constituent members comprise of various Handloom Weavers' Societies which are spread across the State; the main objective of APCO is to serve and function as a State Level Apex Society for Cotton, Silk and Wool Handloom Weavers; that the Petitioners' Societies are the Primary Societies which are the members of the APCO, which is construed as the Apex Society; that the Apex Society organises the Handloom Industry on commercial lines in the State; that the object of the Apex Society is to provide processing facilities including dyeing, mercerizing, printing and finishing for all types of yarn and varieties of cloth to the member societies (Primary Society); that one of the prime object of the Apex Society is to purchase raw materials, tools and machinery (including spares) and sell the same for cash or credit to the member societies (Primary Societies) and several other functions; that the limitation of the Apex Society is that it shall not either supply raw material or any assignment to any society which process livery to the power looms; that since the main objective of the Apex Society being to encourage the handlooms, the only embargo on the Apex Society is to not have any transaction with any registered society dealing with the products derived from power looms.
5. The Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that regarding supply of livery cloth to Welfare Departments including Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Tribal Welfare Departments, Women and Child Welfare Departments etc., the then Director of Handloom and Textile finalised a production plan for procurement of livery cloth from member societies after making an assessment of the active looms in each of the Primary Society; that this proposal was got approved in the Managing Committee meeting of the Apex Society (Respondent No.2); that basing on this approval the Primary Societies that include the Petitioners herein h
A Court cannot grant an injunction to secure a debt, which is yet to be finally determined, to the detriment of a third party.
The Registrar's power to grant leave to file a suit against a co-operative society in liquidation under Section 121(2) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964 is discretionary and must be exercis....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
